When we share our thoughts on science as well as our research efforts, the collective good is not well-served if we're speaking only to those who already share our perspective. And specifically, If we cannot convince our own colleagues that there's a serious and growing threat to their ability to continue to treat bacterial infections, then we cannot expect governments to believe us either. That has to change.

The BBC reports that the first life-saving drug for COVID-19 has been identified. While that is strictly true, without more context and numbers the impact of dexamethasone is obscured. Is this drug just click-bait material or actually a "major breakthrough"?

This past weekend at West Point, President Trump had trouble drinking a glass of water and he displayed an unsteady gait when descending a ramp. It is possible these problems indicate some type of neuropathy. And while it's unlikely, one potential cause is hydroxychloroquine.

Perhaps someday a ballad will be written about the tragic tale of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and its ugly cousin chloroquine (CQ). HCQ, a potential (and controversial) therapy for COVID-19 at one time, is no more. The FDA revoked the emergency authorization of both HCQ and CQ. This was an example of how NOT to develop a drug. A lesson learned -- or not.

Some 54 scientists have resigned or been fired as a result of an ongoing investigation by the National Institutes of Health. At issue is the failure of NIH grantees to disclose financial ties to foreign governments. In 93% of those cases, the hidden funding came from a Chinese institution.

The pandemic isn't making the world any brighter. Insecticides are being sold online to treat or prevent COVID-19 -- and people are buying them. Speaking of pesticides, you probably had a healthy dose of one this morning and it's more toxic than DDT. Drink up!

Remember the wisdom of the not-so-distant past? Leaving delivered boxes outside for 24 hours, then donning gloves to wipe them down before carefully opening the cartons? It’s time to shed a bit of scientific light on what we know now. 

Peer review, especially peer review of chemical safety/risk assessments, is under assault. Is something inherently wrong with the process of this area of peer review?

Most drug and vaccine candidates fail. However, the success rate varies wildly depending on the therapeutic area. The probability that at least one coronavirus vaccine will win FDA approval is quite high, though that does not mean it will work well.

The more recent cases of COVID-19 seem to be coming from homes and family contacts, rather than from strangers. And there, with the "opening up" of social mobility, is an increasing interest in the spread and dispersion of airborne COVID-19 particles. There are lessons to be learned from atmospheric science, especially when it pertains to the dispersion of small particles.